But there really shouldn’t be any sticking point when it comes to fuels dirtier and more polluting than oil. Who really believes that we should be polluting more than we are? I don’t think even the most fire-and-brimstone evangelicals believe that.

So why are companies and the government pouring $31 billion into production of low-grade bitumen from the Canadian tar sands? (Ditto for oil shale.) One can only blame expensive lobbyists from the oil industry, because there is no public policy benefit to it. Plug-in hybrids, public transit improvements, and increased fuel efficiency are all absolutely possible, and would offset enough demand for oil to make tar sands development unnecessary. If public policy barred oil companies from importing tar sands bitumen, we would free up $31 billion in potential investments in renewable energy.

The gunk literally exploded out of the ground in Alberta is of such low quality that requires whole new refineries to handle it, and refining it produces two and a half times as much greenhouse gas per gallon as standard crude oil. Particulate air pollution is significantly higher from the heavy-duty refining. Know what else? It pollutes lakes. Not just any lakes: the Great Lakes, which account for a full fifth of the world’s fresh water supply. Take all these together, and the pipeline project already approved to bring the tarry gunk into the Midwest amounts to little more than a “pollution delivery system,” concludes a new study from the University of Toronto. Reports Canada’s Globe and Mail: The proposed refineries that will process the gunk will use the Great Lakes “‘as a cheap supply’ source for their copious water needs and the area’s air ‘as a pollution dump.'” As NRDC points out, these aren’t just doomsday scenarios; they’ve been spelled out in the refineries’ permit applications.